"Testing on components of the system, dubbed KRUSTY... " Named after Krusty the Clown?
KRUSTY stands for "Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY".
That's a retronym. Earlier tests in the series were named DUFF.
U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
131–138 of 138 posts
Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200... Now please provide citations for your claims. Specifically 'Massive Costs' and 'large effects'. Nuclear power does not need to be safe, only saver than the alternatives, this includes long term pollution from solar panel waste. Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment.
Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects. Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement , sources on bottom) Fukushima cost: 188bn + ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/jap... ) Costs for decomissioning a nuclear power plant in the US: up to 500mil ( https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommiss…
It has everything to do with the economic costs. There is no other reason other than perceived threat to human life that drives that cost. How is that not obvious ?
That paper, and others like it, demonstrates that radiation is much more benign than generally believed, and that level of resources spent on threads that don't exists, especially in comparison with others, like drink a can of soda a day, or living in a city, is not justifiable.
Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
#133Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a human issue. Which could be applied to any challenge that humanity face. This basic human weaknesses is always what holds us back in any endeavour. It is dangerous to just dismiss it as "arbitary". You have to deal with these issues if you want to make big projects achieve their objectives.
It's fine to put yourself to a danger willingly. It's not fine to put your neighbors to a danger without their consent. The problem with many pieces of large-scale tech is potential harmful side effects on unrelated people who did not ask for that.
Yes, I agree. People are often nonchalant about those low probability dangers. But a single death from Cancer is just as bad as the death of an astronaut, perhaps worse as they have not consented to the risk or understand it. We should care about that, especially as space exploration is such an optional undertaking which people don't have to support. That is why there is a range safety system and why anything radioactive needs to be treated with caution.
Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter? It's not as if the deposits migrate.
On Earth they certainly do, if you choose the right time scale.
Right, because the Earth has tectonic activity. Mars? Not so much. Geology should have been stable over the 500 million years since Mars last had significant geological activity.
Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
#136Part of Nasa's Game Changing Development program:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_de...
Re: U.S. tests nuclear power system to sustain astronauts on Mars
#137As far as I understand it they are pumping the equivalent thermal energy as an actual operating core would produce into the reactor casing and assembly using a specially designed electrical insert that uses external power. This isn't a fission test. It's a mechanical engineering test. Still cool.
From my understanding the fission part is "easy", the hard part is taking the heat and converting to electricity efficiently and reliably. The Mars Curiosity rover among other probes use a thermocouple based generators to create electricity from the fission heat[1]. Extremely robust , no moving parts, but extremely inefficient just a few percent converted to electricity the rest to heat. The heat is very useful on ma…
>fission heat
Those probes are absolutely not using fission. Radioactive decay is not the same thing.